MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011156968 · doi:10.7202/039617ar

Justifier l’arme nucléaire

2010· article· fr· W2011156968 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
André Dumoulin, Christophe Wasinski

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes internationales · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDefense, Military, and Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La possession d’armements nucléaires n’est pas un phénomène irréversible. Partant de cette idée, nous nous sommes interrogés non pas sur ce qui fait que la France a acquis des armements nucléaires, mais sur la raison pour laquelle elle conserve ces armements. En l’occurrence, notre attention s’est portée sur la période de 1990 à 2000 pendant laquelle un débat stratégique nucléaire relativement important s’est développé. Il a été l’occasion pour les stratégistes de réaffirmer l’utilité de l’arme. À travers ce débat, les stratégistes décrivent un contexte international incertain et qu’ils ne considèrent pas comme mûr pour remettre en question la pertinence de l’armement nucléaire.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes internationalesSame topicDefense, Military, and Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207